+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? (/showthread.php?tid=9708)
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Hibernicus - 07-02-2007
Quote:Sean,
Is that armor actually protecting your elbows?
Old pic of a a very old seg with very stretched out leathers. I'd've thought that was obvious? Look at the pic again and you can see the tunica betwween the plates! Yikes!
BTW, someone else brought this pic up some years ago and I explained it then.
Our SCA experiences with using segs is probably maybe 25% of the total and getting smaller each year. What we learned about the function and durability of the armor in simulated combat has been useful. I highly recommend it
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-02-2007
Quote:I never claimed we made segs that fit guys with small necks only that they came closer.How much closer? Did they have a neck 2.5in (6.25cm)? 3 in (7.5cm)? 4in (10cm)? A 4in (10cm) wide neck would be about 12in (30cm) circmference. That is about right for my wife. But that is DOUBLING the neck size you get by vertically mounting the historical plates. DOUBLING is not tweeking. It is an explosion.
Quote:"The back is irrelevant. Just look at the front"Given the way you advocate mounting the front breast plates, a legionary would be practically decapitated before it even got to the back plates. So yes the back plates are irrelevant to the question of partial decapitation of legionaries.
I disagree.. the back is very relavent to form and fit
Quote:"They also work better if you make them out of stainless steel and mount them to heavy nylon web gear. "I think you missed the point.
No, they do not. I know that for a fact. I made some SCA guys years ago. They performed atrociously!
Quote:"Wait, didn’t you once suggest using stainless? "I don’t think I was the only one on that thread who “misunderstoodâ€
No. I asked if stainless could be made to look like mild CR steel then why not use it Some folks use modern plywood to make shields look like scutums. Why not?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Hibernicus - 07-02-2007
The Corbridge segs in order to fit have to be crossed though not as severely as illustrated.
The small segs I've made and the one I am making are closer and when shaped can be made to ride in such a way as to opitmize the neck opening and cause the breastplates to meet near vertically.
I'll make full replicas at the end of the month. No time now.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-02-2007
Well, if people want to wear segs without a subarmalis, then that is their call, but I find a subarmaliss allows me to do things people without one find pretty hard. It allows you to absorb blows, take the weight of the armour without a problem etc. Would not be very intelligent not to wear one, IMHO :lol:
And even wit hthe smallish neck apperature, which while not 100% perfect, is better than a large gap like on the first seg I had.
I don't have a treetrunk neck, but neither is it pencil thin.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-02-2007
Quote:Old pic of a a very old seg with very stretched out leathers. I'd've thought that was obvious? Look at the pic again and you can see the tunica betwween the plates! Yikes!Good enough. We've all worn things worn out from use.
Quote:Our SCA experiences with using segs is probably maybe 25% of the total and getting smaller each year. What we learned about the function and durability of the armor in simulated combat has been useful. I highly recommend itLook Sean, I am not completely discounting all SCA and sim-combat experience. I just think this experience need to be taken within the limits of the archaeological evidence. It can help suggest possible answers to questions where the historical record is incomplete or ambiguous. But to say that modern experience allows us to essentially jettison the evidence is not supportable.
Of course there are open questions. Crossed plates answer the question as to why the neck holes are so small when mounted vertically. It doesn't answer the question as to why the attachments are vertical / horizontal. Perhaps this was aesthetics, perhaps custom. But it is easier to accept that buckles were mounted inefficiently and wore out to quickly than it is to imagine that the armor found is all a mistake, or designed to be worn by skeleton warriors out of Sindbad.
I suggested a theory that perhaps the vertical straps were really diagonal. It might improve the support for the girdle plates. In the vertical strap position if one strap breaks, that side tends to sag open. With crossed straps, this tendency might be diminished. It might also better align the strap attachments with the direction of stress.
The horizontal breast strap would not be aligned with direction of stress. But there is very little stress on this strap with the vertically mounted straps and diagonally mounting would further deduce stress on the horizontal strap.
The buckles on the upper girdle plate are an issue. But there may be some tendency for these to curve down anyway, which would bring the buckles more in alignment with the diagonal. And some may be mounted at different angles, not just vertical. I don't know. It was just a theory I threw out. But it is easier to believe than that all of these plates are completely mis-sized, and mis-shaped, or made to partially decapitate legionaries. I just think we have to respect the available evidence.
Note: Does crossing the straps really work? Probably not. It certainly doesn’t work with my segmentata. The shoulders are early Albion, the girdle plates are mine, but the verticals are spread a little too far. But even allowing for these possible inaccuracies, the results were atrocious. The breast plates tried to not merely cross, but to completely overlap, and close up the neck hole. (Ironic?) Also it was difficult to close the gap between the girdle and breast plates.
But even if a total failure, this theory at least does not require re-shaping, and re-sizing the historical evidence. And maybe the buckles really did just break a lot. After all they were replaced with the hook and eye.
Roman reenacting is about trying to recreate what the Romans actually did, not to improve it.
Sean, I am honestly a bit surprised. Given your concern about making scutums by layering the wood and using hide glue, why the willingness to completely re-shape and re-size these breast plates when a feasible alternative exists? IMHO your modifications go way beyond scaling up for a slightly larger modern frame.
On the other hand I am more than willing to hear alternative evidence. I began this thread believing vertical to be the ideal to strive for and Matt Lukes to be off his rocker. He, and the evidence he presented, and some of my own experiments has changed my mind. I find this exciting.
But please feel free to try and change it back again. That would be quite interesting. I just find that Matt’s theory provides a better explanation of the evidence than yours does.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-02-2007
Quote:And even wit hthe smallish neck apperature, which while not 100% perfect, is better than a large gap like on the first seg I had.
I don't have a treetrunk neck, but neither is it pencil thin.
If ANYONE can fit inside a 2in (5cm) wide neck hole, that I want to see.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-02-2007
Never said anything about that, now did I! :lol: I posted th size of my neck apperature above earlier!
You probably didn't notice it when you were writing your novels!! :wink:
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-02-2007
Quote:Never said anything about that, now did I! :lol: I posted th size of my neck apperature above earlier!Nope. :o
You probably didn't notice it when you were writing your novels!! :wink:
But you must admit it is a funny image. Ten thousand legionaries marching into battle with 2in wide necks.
Takes "pencil neck" to a whole new level.
Yes, I can go on can't I?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-02-2007
I don't dissagree at all! About the pencil necks too! :twisted:
I see the point about the opening, but, I would prefer a smaller opening, one tailored to me not just slavishly following the artifacts.
Brian came pretty close a perfect fit on mine, except the neck opening. But mine is a 'C' or 'B' not an 'A', so perhaps I am really just pissing in the wind so to speak.
My A definately crosses, but it was a disaster anyway, and after that, a slightly small neck opening was a small price to pay! (no pun intended) :roll:
I spit on Cor'A's, as unworthy of a true Roman!(ok, I would wear one if it was tailored to me, but don't tell anyone, it would ruin my image) :lol:
Was wanting the Kalkriese too, but that mess of leather girdle strapping is a little scary!
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - marsvigilia - 07-02-2007
Quote:Was wanting the Kalkriese too, but that mess of leather girdle strapping is a little scary!
I am unfamiliar with the strapping you're talking about. Can you point me in the right direction?
Thanks.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-02-2007
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=14602
Hopefully that link will take you there! Still, it is a nice idea for a Kalriese impression!
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - petrinus - 07-03-2007
matt lukes is making my seg, and the more i see what i goes into it, i appreciate the the time it is taking him. i very much admire all the fine work ive seen posted here, and should i get my kit before the summer ends, well....i'll see you all on the battlefield. of course theres still the matter of that tunic my friend andy has failed to produce, talented taylor that chap but he has been a ghost and not in very good contact for some months, anyone know anyone for that?
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 07-03-2007
Quote:The Corbridge segs in order to fit have to be crossed though not as severely as illustrated.
Finally you accept the evidence - but then why choose to ignore it?
Quote:I'll make full replicas at the end of the month. No time now.
"Replicas" of what? You have spent most of the thread completely ignoring the evidence and dismissing the Corbridge evidence as untrustworthy junk. Now you will make a replica!
Quote:Old pic of a a very old seg with very stretched out leathers. I'd've thought that was obvious? Look at the pic again and you can see the tunica betwween the plates! Yikes!
Boy that is some stretchy leather you use.
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - sulla felix - 07-03-2007
Quote:"The back is irrelevant. Just look at the front"
I disagree.. the back is very relevant to form and fit
Particularly the relationship between the width of the back plates and breast plates which you seem to completely ignore Hibernicus.
Quote:Bend tweak an shape plates and the fit is better.
You have presented absolutley no evidence that anything you make "fits better", even allowing for very stretchy leather! In any event there has to be a point of reference to determine what may be "better". Maybe you could post some pictures of the Corbridge segs you made closely following the evidence and compare these with your so-called improved versions? We may then be able to determine what you mean by "better".
Re: Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally? - Hibernicus - 07-03-2007
Quote:The Corbridge segs in order to fit have to be crossed though not as severely as illustrated.
Finally you accept the evidence - but then why choose to ignore it?
I do not accept the evdence as interpreted by some.
Quote:I'll make full replicas at the end of the month. No time now.
"Replicas" of what? You have spent most of the thread completely ignoring the evidence and dismissing the Corbridge evidence as untrustworthy junk. Now you will make a replica!
Replicas of the Hoard. As I've said I've made segs for small bodies and they come closest to the Hoard and do not cross as severely as some have illustrated.
I still believe that the Hoard might be useless to them junk. Buried to be retrieved later? Nope, buried to be hidden from scavengers. Can't burn it, not worth carting away... so, you bury it.
Quote:Boy that is some stretchy leather you use.
Not at all. Stretched out over years of use and maintenance.. SCA combat, re-enacement.. about 8 years I think.
Quote:You have presented absolutley no evidence that anything you make "fits better",
I said I'd post stuff in a few weeks. I though that was clear?
Quote:even allowing for very stretchy leather!
As part of the design? Absolutely not. Stretchy leather and leather under stress is weak. Torque it against the grain and it gets weaker.
Quote:In any event there has to be a point of reference to determine what may be "better". Maybe you could post some pictures of the Corbridge segs you made closely following the evidence and compare these with your so-called improved versions? We may then be able to determine what you mean by "better".
My better, is my interpertation of the evidence based on use and function isn't it? Someone else may interpret it differently.
The small segs I've made that more closely resemble the Hoard are no longer available. Made those a decade ago?
And as I've said I'm making a small seg now. It more closely follows the Hoard than others we've made. And as I've said I'll make repicas of the Hoard and post all.
edited for violation of personal attack rules.